Revenue forecast

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are all false and provide no safety or behavior coverage, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behaviors: invoiced/skipped periods are excluded, paused schedules are listed apart, and plan-based month limits apply. It does not state what happens if a request exceeds the plan limit, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core meaning stated first and exclusions/plan limits after. Every clause adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and uninformative annotations, the description is mostly complete: it covers the output dimension, scope, exclusions, paused-schedule handling, and plan limits. The main missing piece is explicit behavior when the requested months exceed the free/pro allowance (clamp vs. error), which would make it fully self-sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema by tying the 'months' ceiling to plan level ('Free: 3 months; Pro: up to 120'), which the schema does not express. This helps an agent choose a safe value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource ('expected invoiced revenue') and precise scope: per calendar month, per currency, from active schedules. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting exclusions and special handling of paused schedules, so an agent can tell it apart from schedule_* and invoice_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides useful context about what is included/excluded and plan-based limits ('Free: 3 months; Pro: up to 120'), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus an alternative or when not to use it. Usage is mostly implied by the tool name and title.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.